Case T-18/15: Action brought on 12 January 2015 — Philip Morris v Commission
Date: 2015-01-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, administrative transparency, provision of documents, tobacco industry








C_2015107EN.01003002.xml










30.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/30






Action brought on 12 January 2015 — Philip Morris v Commission
(Case T-18/15)
(2015/C 107/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Philip Morris Ltd (Richmond, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Nordlander and M. Abenhaïm, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application for annulment admissible;










—


annul the Commission’s decision Ares (2014) 3694540 of 6 November 2014, in so far as it refused to grant the applicant full access to the requested documents, with the exception however, of the redacted personal data contained therein;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs for these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of decision Ares (2014) 3694540 of 6 November 2014, whereby the Commission refused to grant the applicant full access to five internal documents drawn up in the context of the preparatory works leading to the adoption of Directive 2014/40/EU on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products (1) (the ‘contested decision’).
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 4(2) second indent of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2) (the ‘Transparency Regulation’) by failing to show that full disclosure of the requested documents to the applicant would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine the protection of identified ‘court proceedings’, and by failing to properly assess whether an overriding public interest could nonetheless justify full disclosure. The applicant argues that the Commission failed to show that full disclosure of the requested documents to the applicant would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine the protection of identified ‘court proceedings’ because, first, the requested documents cannot benefit from the presumption of protection applicable to ‘court pleadings’, second, the Commission’s abstract reference to the equality of arms principle cannot justify extending that presumption to non-court documents, and, third, the Commission’s abstract references to pending proceedings, equality of arms, and the legal service’s ability to defend the validity of the TPD are not sufficient to show that disclosure would, on the facts, specifically and actually undermine the protection of ‘court proceedings’.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 4(3) second subparagraph of the Transparency Regulation by failing to show that full disclosure of the requested document to the applicant would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine its decision-making process. The applicant submits that the Commission made vague claims about a harm allegedly caused to the cooperation between services, but failed to show any serious external pressure likely to seriously undermine the decision-making process. The Commission also committed a manifest error in assessing the overriding public interest, because it identified the wrong interest to balance with the protection of its decision-making process.






(1)  Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC, OJ, 2014, L 127/1.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145/43.